6 ms·

I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the peop

I came here to say the opposite. The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. This is the system working for the people. Without the ability or interest from the states to push back against the federal government's decrees, we would be stuck with an authoritarian nation. Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. That should certainly be addressed, but we can't ignore the current battle just to focus on the bigger war.

smsm42 8y ago
> The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. Or rather, absence of action in this case. > This is the system working for the people. The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. > Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how the system is supposed to work, and doing that will result in a system even more broken than now.
- twblalock 8y ago
  > The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system, and the fact that the states can push back is one of the several ways the system is supposed to work.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system True, but "AGs of states finding friendly judge to force federal legislature to do their bidding" is not part of that design. If they just passed state-wide regulations and federal AG would sue them for it, then it'd be a different case, where one could justifiably invoke state rights. But in this case it's just plain lawfare.
    - twblalock 8y ago
      It seems to me that it would be "lawfare" either way -- either the states would sue the Federal government or the Federal government would sue the states.
      - smsm42 8y ago
        Lawfare is not when just somebody sues somebody else. It's when lawsuits are used to achieve goals that go way beyond and not connected with upholding the law - such as to enforce specific policy through courts, failing to pass it through legislative or executive branches.
    - pseudalopex 8y ago
      The states brought suit in the court specified by federal law. They don't get to pick the judges. They're suing the FCC, not Congress. The courts will either uphold the order or overturn it on procedural grounds. If they uphold the order, Congress doesn't have to do anything. If they overturn it, the FCC can try again, Congress can amend the procedures the FCC is required to follow, and/or Congress can enact the same rules the FCC improperly ordered. The other part of the case is whether states can enforce their own regulations, which several have already passed. It's better for everyone to resolve that question promptly and with a single case. Declaratory judgment, where the courts resolve a dispute before it reaches a critical point, is part of the design.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  > The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. It's called checks and balances, and it was how the system was designed to work. > Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how the system is supposed to work, and doing that will result in a system even more broken than now. The courts aren't being used as a replacement, they're being used as a court. When one part of the government does something, you use another part of the government to counter it, until you've exhausted all your options. Then you can go back to the drawing board, which is to start a grassroots movement to push for overwhelming bipartisan support to force even a one-sided legislative branch to adopt the reforms you seek. It's an iterative process. Using the courts is not circumventing anything. You can always use legislation later to determine law that supersedes ruling by the courts, unless such legislation is found to be unconstitutional.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > It's called checks and balances, and it was how the system was designed to work. No, it's not. Just repeating "checks and balances" doesn't mean courts can be abused for doing something that is not court's purpose. The court's purpose is preserving the consistency of legislation (including the Constitution as supreme, very hard to change part of the law) and adherence of executive to the law. In this case, the executive is clearly within the law, but some people are unhappy about it, so they want to abuse the courts to make them legislate from the bench that the policy must be different. This is not how the system is designed to work, this is the exact opposite of it. > The courts aren't being used as a replacement, they're being used as a court. They are being used to force through a policy that is not supported by either legislature or executive. That's not a function of a proper court. > When one part of the government does something, you use another part of the government to counter it, until you've exhausted all your options. No, that's not how it's supposed to work. It's not "try anything until my side wins, then block any attempt of other side to try anything at all". Your side may temporarily win, but when the other side does the same, you end up with the broken system where nobody respects any decisions and the only thing that matters is which side you're on. I call such system broken.
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  > Or rather, absence of action in this case. Issuing an order is an action. The states claim that the federal executive didn't follow the legally required procedure. > The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. The federal executive says they can't. The states are asking the courts to say they can.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
The ability for these State Attorneys General to do this is good. The fact that it had to come down to this is terrible.
phkahler 8y ago
>> The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. I wonder how many of those states made laws forbidding or working against municipal broadband.
- sigstoat 8y ago
  and how many of them have made any effort to clean up the permitting processes for rolling out fiber.
- gervase 8y ago
  Here is a list of all 22 states that filed, with links to their local roadblocks to municipal broadband (if any): California : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#california https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Connecticut D. C. Delaware Hawaii Illinois Iowa Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#minnesota https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Mississippi New Mexico New York North Carolina : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#north-carolina https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Oregon Pennsylvania : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#pennsylvania https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Rhode Island Vermont Virginia : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#virginia https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Washington : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#washington https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...
- jadell 8y ago
  It does not surprise me in the least that the executive branch of a state (which includes the AG's office) is supporting net neutrality at the federal level while the legislative is passing state-level laws to hamstring it. I live in one of these states with bans on municipal broadband, NC. The relationship between our Republican super-majority General Assembly and our Democrat governor is completely dysfunctional, and our districts are so gerrymandered that we, the people, can't fix it. Republicans in the GA have been calling special sessions all summer to override the governor's vetoes. The GA recently put several state constitutional amendments up for referendum in November, aimed squarely at stripping the governor of more powers (something no one ever mentioned during our last Republican governor's term.) This is not going to change any time soon (see: gerrymandering.) Our AG suing the fed is literally our only option to block most of the madness happening at the federal level (until the Supreme court rules on partisan gerrymandering,) because our legislative branch no longer works for the people, they simply push party and lobbyist agendas at all costs.
genericid 8y ago
How about "it's the fallback system working for the people"?
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
You both are likely correct.

smsm42 8y ago

> The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. Or rather, absence of action in this case. > This is the system working for the people. The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. > Currently, trying to pass meaningful legislation is like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a pinhole. Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how the system is supposed to work, and doing that will result in a system even more broken than now.

twblalock 8y ago
> The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system, and the fact that the states can push back is one of the several ways the system is supposed to work.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > The tension between federal and state power is an intentionally designed feature of the system True, but "AGs of states finding friendly judge to force federal legislature to do their bidding" is not part of that design. If they just passed state-wide regulations and federal AG would sue them for it, then it'd be a different case, where one could justifiably invoke state rights. But in this case it's just plain lawfare.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    It seems to me that it would be "lawfare" either way -- either the states would sue the Federal government or the Federal government would sue the states.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      Lawfare is not when just somebody sues somebody else. It's when lawsuits are used to achieve goals that go way beyond and not connected with upholding the law - such as to enforce specific policy through courts, failing to pass it through legislative or executive branches.
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    The states brought suit in the court specified by federal law. They don't get to pick the judges. They're suing the FCC, not Congress. The courts will either uphold the order or overturn it on procedural grounds. If they uphold the order, Congress doesn't have to do anything. If they overturn it, the FCC can try again, Congress can amend the procedures the FCC is required to follow, and/or Congress can enact the same rules the FCC improperly ordered. The other part of the case is whether states can enforce their own regulations, which several have already passed. It's better for everyone to resolve that question promptly and with a single case. Declaratory judgment, where the courts resolve a dispute before it reaches a critical point, is part of the design.
peterwwillis 8y ago
> The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. Using courts to force federal government to take action that elected executive and elected legislature do not support is not system working. It's called checks and balances, and it was how the system was designed to work. > Legislature is complex and hard. Not the reason to try and make courts into its replacement. That's not how the system is supposed to work, and doing that will result in a system even more broken than now. The courts aren't being used as a replacement, they're being used as a court. When one part of the government does something, you use another part of the government to counter it, until you've exhausted all your options. Then you can go back to the drawing board, which is to start a grassroots movement to push for overwhelming bipartisan support to force even a one-sided legislative branch to adopt the reforms you seek. It's an iterative process. Using the courts is not circumventing anything. You can always use legislation later to determine law that supersedes ruling by the courts, unless such legislation is found to be unconstitutional.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > It's called checks and balances, and it was how the system was designed to work. No, it's not. Just repeating "checks and balances" doesn't mean courts can be abused for doing something that is not court's purpose. The court's purpose is preserving the consistency of legislation (including the Constitution as supreme, very hard to change part of the law) and adherence of executive to the law. In this case, the executive is clearly within the law, but some people are unhappy about it, so they want to abuse the courts to make them legislate from the bench that the policy must be different. This is not how the system is designed to work, this is the exact opposite of it. > The courts aren't being used as a replacement, they're being used as a court. They are being used to force through a policy that is not supported by either legislature or executive. That's not a function of a proper court. > When one part of the government does something, you use another part of the government to counter it, until you've exhausted all your options. No, that's not how it's supposed to work. It's not "try anything until my side wins, then block any attempt of other side to try anything at all". Your side may temporarily win, but when the other side does the same, you end up with the broken system where nobody respects any decisions and the only thing that matters is which side you're on. I call such system broken.
pseudalopex 8y ago
> Or rather, absence of action in this case. Issuing an order is an action. The states claim that the federal executive didn't follow the legally required procedure. > The system working for the people would be the states to make their own legislation. The federal executive says they can't. The states are asking the courts to say they can.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

The ability for these State Attorneys General to do this is good. The fact that it had to come down to this is terrible.

phkahler 8y ago

>> The states are doing what they can to limit damaging actions by the federal government. I wonder how many of those states made laws forbidding or working against municipal broadband.

sigstoat 8y ago
and how many of them have made any effort to clean up the permitting processes for rolling out fiber.
gervase 8y ago
Here is a list of all 22 states that filed, with links to their local roadblocks to municipal broadband (if any): California : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#california https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Connecticut D. C. Delaware Hawaii Illinois Iowa Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#minnesota https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Mississippi New Mexico New York North Carolina : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#north-carolina https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Oregon Pennsylvania : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#pennsylvania https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Rhode Island Vermont Virginia : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#virginia https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... Washington : https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/#washington https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...
jadell 8y ago
It does not surprise me in the least that the executive branch of a state (which includes the AG's office) is supporting net neutrality at the federal level while the legislative is passing state-level laws to hamstring it. I live in one of these states with bans on municipal broadband, NC. The relationship between our Republican super-majority General Assembly and our Democrat governor is completely dysfunctional, and our districts are so gerrymandered that we, the people, can't fix it. Republicans in the GA have been calling special sessions all summer to override the governor's vetoes. The GA recently put several state constitutional amendments up for referendum in November, aimed squarely at stripping the governor of more powers (something no one ever mentioned during our last Republican governor's term.) This is not going to change any time soon (see: gerrymandering.) Our AG suing the fed is literally our only option to block most of the madness happening at the federal level (until the Supreme court rules on partisan gerrymandering,) because our legislative branch no longer works for the people, they simply push party and lobbyist agendas at all costs.

genericid 8y ago

How about "it's the fallback system working for the people"?

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

You both are likely correct.